Electric, Diesel and Steam Locomotives

[Sterling1]

Same addicting website Rail Pics this time about the SD40-2 being purchased by Florida East Coast (FEC) for reasons and are they going to be repainted soon, they look like they have the old Armour Yellow and Harbor Mist Gray scheme same format as above.

[M636C]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Sterling1



What do you mean by intergral fuel tank, and does the US locos have them?

The only US example I know of is the one I mentioned, the Union Pacific Alco Century 855, of which three were built, two A units and one cabless B unit.

While a normal locomotive has a frame in the form of a long, shallow wide box, with a separate fuel tank in the form of a box underneath it, the 855 has a frame that while flat on top, curved down to fill the space between the (two pairs of two) trucks and curved back up again. This "bulge" was sealed off and fitted with gauges and fill (and drain) connections.

In the Indian locomotives, and in similar Alco and GE units in Australia, this gives a large fuel tank while saving in weight over all (the extra weight of the bigger frame is less than that of a separate tank).

I can't imagine that this was the reason on a unit that had the power equipment of two C-628s above the frame, but even UP may have had weight limits!

Peter

[M636C]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Sterling1

Okay something in the Rail Pics website rakes in the questions
I saw an SCL U18B#333 is that long gone and why did they build such short locos?

The U18B is shorter to reduce weight. It was intended as a replacement for older GP9 and GP7 locomotives, and the SCL units actually used EMD trucks.

GE already built versions of its U series with both twelve and sixteen cylinders, but using the same body design, with just different hood door arrangements to tell them apart.

With the U18, they decided to shorten the unit since the V-8 engine was almost exactly half as long as the V-16, so they didn't need the length, and this would reduce the weight to that of the smaller units it was replacing, which were used on lighter track.

As to the P30CH, the shape of its roof is similar to the earlier U30CG built for Santa Fe, and is really just an extension of the shape of the cab roof of the U series units. It would allow operation in tight clearances in the East, and possibly they were hoping for orders from New York City commuter operations. In fact only Amtrak bought any, and they tended to be used in the South, on the Auto Train and from Chicago to New Orleans (at least, that's where I saw them!)

Peter

[Sterling1]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Sterling1

QUOTE: Originally posted by Guilford350

QUOTE: Originally posted by Sterling1

Does anyone know if there are design papers for the control stands knee knockers and all the others?

Control stands for older locomotives? If you're looking for photos, then check out these operator manuals: http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/manual/manual.html

I mean what kind of design of loco control stand I hear about AAR versions and the most recent (1980-90ish) desktop controls?

I waited long enough for the AAR control stand on SD70ACe
the website is yet again another RailPics site
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=83563

[Overmod]

There is a good high-resolution picture of UP C-855 #60 at

http://www.northeast.railfan.net/images/up60.jpg

which shows the integral-tank construction fairly well (if you look closely you can see the weld between the side and the belly of this tank). Note also the relative height of the frame, to clear the span bolsters between the paired B trucks.

I believe part of this design is intended to permit shorter overall length than a conventional tank would have permitted. As an example of a "normal" large Alco fuel tank, see here:

http://www.northeast.railfan.net/images/cr6792.jpg

and for another idea Alco used for a very large fuel bunker, see the arrangement on the "Alco-Haulic" DH643s:

http://www.calclassic.com/alco/photos/sp9802.jpg

Note that neither of the 'latter' approaches are particularly well-suited to a B-B+B-B locomotive with high frames. I can't help but wonder whether the C-855 style tank was considerably cheaper to make, GIVEN the rather complex and tall frame required by the span-bolster trucks...

[Sterling1]

I noticed the Hi-Ad trucks on the Alco C-C trucks. The springing is strange and how much more adhesion was achieved with these trucks?

[Overmod]

Ain't nothing strange about that springing if you recognize what the different components are -- you see much the same approach used with some passenger-car trucks.

The point of the Hi-Ad truck is to eliminate, as far as possible, any tendency for the leading axle to unload, by lifting, when power is applied to the truck frame. In part, it does this with the large coil springs you see externally, which transfer load from the truck sideframe assembly to the bolster; in part, the struts carry longitudinal loading and keep the parts of the truck from torquing relative to each other (which would be a problem otherwise on a motored truck with coil springing). Note the small snubbers between the frame and bolster -- these absorb any residual motion between frame and bolster during running.

One difficulty you can see with these trucks is that the struts block access to the center axle bearings. Another is the great complexity of the truck and bolster castings. The primary springing is carried high up in the frame (as with Flexicoils and HTCs on EMDs) and I have not seen one of these trucks with axle damping a la EMD Dash-2s, so my suspicion is that the vertical ride quality may not be too good -- although probably better than contemporary EMDs -- if the bolster springs are hard.

It's interesting to see the various ways manufacturers experimented with zero-weight-transfer trucks during this general period. Would make a good Trains article, Peter...

[M636C]

Overmod,

You're not volunteering to write an article on trucks?

In fact I have a stock article on the Alco Hi-ad and the MLW and GE contemporaries to hand, published a few years ago in the Australian magazine "Motive Power". I should clean it up and submit it to Trains.

I have an early Alco "brochure", actually a reprint of an advertisement, on the Alco "Hi-Ad" truck. It is described as a High Speed truck, not a High adhesion truck, although the traction rods in line with the axles will reduce the effect of weight transfer, although not as well as putting all the motors on one side of the axles, as MLW did in their truck.

On good track, the Alco Hi-Ad rode really well, from my experience on the Mt Newman line. Once I hung way out from the cab window watching the flexicoils and the truck frame move in a curve (and I wouldn't have done that if I'd expected any sharp jerks). It was quite good vertically, but so was a fully laden ore car - I had a cabin built into one of those for test purposes.

On the H643, the hydraulic transmissions took up some of the fuel tank space but also required to be firmly attached to the frame, so an integral tank satisfied both criteria.

Sterling1,

The Alco truck illustrated on the C636 lik above is the one used on Indian electric locomotives.

Peter

[Overmod]

Aha! You have seized the bait in proper fashion! (But in any case are more qualified than I am to write these articles... ;-})

By all means, clean your Alco article up and get it to Trains. A good discussion of zero-weight-transfer approaches -- with good, clear diagrams showing the separation of forces, alignment of traction struts or blocks, etc. -- is something I've wanted to see for a considerable time.

If at all possible, carry the discussion further, though... into steerable geometry. I've been waiting since 1996 for a decent technical article on this, and strongly suspect that there's a huge amount of 'wisdom' on the subject that I don't know (but would like to).

I had always proceeded on the assumption that the "Hi-Ad" design was supposedly optimized for adhesion, even though its geometric features seemed to be directed at the same things as contemporary high-speed suspension (see above comment about passenger trucks...) Are there reports, better yet accelerometric data, that confirm that the high-speed performance of these trucks is high, especially from the standpoint of the track? Any experience with over-79-mph speeds, either on test or via experience?

I wonder whether either the HTCR or GE steerables would benefit from the four-point outside bolster support (perhaps with longer secondary springing and low truck-frame spring attach point a la ALP44s) and outside struts? (I still haven't given up on the idea of very-high-speed freight power, and neither have a few other folks in my general geographic area...)

[M636C]

Overmod,

I never got the instrumentation fitted on either the C636 or M636 units , although I wanted to. But BHP Billiton never rebuilt a unit with MLW-Dofasco trucks (and scrapped or disposed of them), and allocated all the units with GE "Floating Bolster" trucks to the rough and slow ex Goldsworthy Yarrie line.

They must know something!

Let me think about all these questions and get back to you!

Peter

[Sterling1]

On the Alco subject what other strange locos came out of the factory that most people don't know about? The discussion on the Hi-Ad trucks is nicely done. While we're on the subject, what about the M640, in fact I wonder why built just one in 1971? Are Dofasco trucks better in any case than HTCR or GE steerables? I want to know about the manufacturers of the loco and rolling stock trucks. That's one part of the puzzle that I haven't answered yet.

[M636C]

A couple of points there!

First, my German references don't show whether the DB class 101 used any of the work from the "Um An" prototype but it is a Bombardier from Kassell and it does have frame mounted motors with a "hollow shaft" drive (a sort of Quill drive).

The M640 was basically an M636 with an 18 cylinder engine replacing the normal 16 cylinder engine. The 18 cylinder doesn't appear to have been a success, and at least one story is that is broke its crankshaft on the day it was to be delivered! The longer crankshafts in 18 and 20 cylinder engines are weaker than shorter crakshafts, and are subject to worse "torsional vibration", twisting like a stretched rubber band, perhaps. EMD 20 cylinder engines have special torsional dampers that need to be replaced from time to time to stop this twisting effect. Anyway, the M640 was the only 18 cylinder 251 engine used in a locomotive. By the time it came out CP had given up on Alco and CN kept buying them, but not for that long.

Dofasco trucks are OK, as long as the shock absorbers keep working. These shock absorbers are horizontal, and sit between the truck and the body to stop excess lateral (sideways) movement and excess rotation ("hunting") at speed. What they do well is have a short wheelbase, so although they aren't as good in a curve as a radial truck, they are better than a conventional truck. A lot better according to CN tests, and CN kept buying them, even on GE locomotives, until the new GE Hi-Ad came out with the Dash 9 series. The other good thing was that all the motors sat on the same side of the axle on each truck (on the side nearer the centre of the locomotive). This stops weight transfer.

Try to imagine a two axle locomotive truck right at the moment of starting. Both wheels are about to roll forward, say clockwise if we are looking at the right side of the unit. Both motors are on the inner side of the axle, and because of the gears the front motor is about to turn anticlockwise. So the first thing the axle feels is the motor trying to lift it up using the gear wheel . Meanwhile at the back, the other motor, also turning anticlockwise but in front of the axle, is trying to push it down into the rail. So the truck frame tips up at the front, and down at the back, and the lead axle will slip.

Well by putting all the motors behind the axle, the MLW-Dofasco truck has only a constant "lifting" force on all the axles, doesn't tip up at the front, and doesn't slip.

EMD trucks on Dash2 and later units had the same arrangement. GE Dash7 and Dash8 units didn't have this arrangement, but had the trucks arranged both facing the same way, so they both tilted down and avoided slipping on starting (not a help if the unit was running backwards, of course).

When GE bought the old MLW plant in Montreal, they got all of MLW's designs, and they were able to sell CN and BCR units with MLW Dofasco trucks. Then, they took the upper part of the MLW Dofasco, the rubber pads, the pivot point and the shock absorbers, and mated them with the new GE Hi Ad truck with its longer wheelbase and "rollerblade" springs. This also has the motors on one side of the axle, so is as good as an MLW Dofasco in "weight transfer". GE's big customers, UP, BNSF and NS don't have light track and curves like CN inherited in 1920 when it was formed from every broke railroad in Canada. CSX got the old B&O, and lots of curves, so they were big customers for the GE steering truck. I think the GE steering truck uses the same rubber pads between the truck and the body as the Hi-Ad (but I'm not sure)

EMD got into the steering trucks first and patented their arrangement making it harder for GE. Combined with the "Super Series" wheelslip system that uses doppler radar to measure speed (like a Police speed radar gun), the EMD DC units can't be beaten for adhesion in bad conditions, because the steering trucks put the axles in the best position for adhesion. But AC motors don't run away when they slip, the inverter controls their speed, so GE and EMD AC units are more equal in wheelsip control.

I hope the answer was in there somewhere, otherwise I'll try again!

Peter

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Sterling1
While the above question simmers, I wonder what the Polish railway system is using for their motive power, and oh please apply the all deatils format; the info being greatly appreciated[:D]

Diesels:

Switchers:
SM 42 - 789 hp. Bo'Bo'
SM 31 - 1182 hp, Co'Co'
SM 48 - 1182 hp, Co'Co' derived from russian TEM2
and a various oddballs/old classes used for MOW trains.

Road locos:
SU/SP 42 - 789 hp. Bo'Bo' The same as SM 42 but with HEP
SP 32 - 1744 hp, Bo'Bo' - romanian export for passanger trains. Overall abysmal failure.
SU 45 - 1727 hp, Co'Co' - derived from SP 45 (exchanged steam heating to electric)
SP 46 - 2214 hp, Co'Co' - a typical all rounder
ST 44 - 1974 hp, Co'Co' - the same as russian M62
ST 43 - 2072 hp, Co'Co' - romanian export, and, as sp32, isn't known for reliablity

Electric locos (all 3000V DC)

EP 05 - 2727 hp, old class EU 05 regeared to 100 mph (capable of 125+). 2 left.
EU 06 - 2684 hp, built in 1961 by (afair) Vickers-Electric in UK
EU 07/EP 07 - the same as EU 06, but built in Poland through license. EP has slightly higher gearing.
EP 08 - the same as EU 07, but with gearing to run at 100 mph (but limited to 87 mph due to age, standard EU 07 is for 75 mph)
EP 09 - the express loco :) - 3918 hp, 100 mph
EM 10 - a switcher (finally with solid state electronics - all other classes are resistor-controlled). 1288 hp
all these are Bo'Bo'

ET 21 - 2496 hp - Co'Co' freight. Slowly phased out.
ET 22 - 4026 hp - Co'Co' universal, pretty much 1.5 times EU 07. Used mainly for freight.

ET 40 - pretty much two permanently MUed EP 05 with lower gearing. 5455 hp. Bo'Bo+Bo'Bo'
ET 41 - likwise with EU 07, 5369 hp Bo'Bo'+Bo'Bo'
ET 42 - derived from russian VL10, this one is a straight twin section loco. 6013 hp. Bo'Bo+Bo'Bo'

These three are used mainly for coal trains from Upper Silesia to Gdansk/Gdynia seaports, altho ET 41 can be seen with manifest, or even with passanger trains.

anyway - if you want to know anything about european railroad equipment - visit the page below :)

http://www.railfaneurope.net/

[Sterling1]

I just noted on the Trains newswire today, and I was wondering what China has for locos now that the steam units are disappearing, and that for the "first time in two decades China has ordered GE locomotives." BTW what were those locos from 1985?

[Sterling1]

Do we know if the Russians have upgraded their railroads, locos, and rolling stock in any way? All the details would be greatly aprecciated.

[Sterling1]

QUOTE: Originally posted by uzurpator

QUOTE: Originally posted by Sterling1
While the above question simmers, I wonder what the Polish railway system is using for their motive power, and oh please apply the all deatils format; the info being greatly appreciated[:D]

Diesels:

Switchers:
SM 42 - 789 hp. Bo'Bo'
SM 31 - 1182 hp, Co'Co'
SM 48 - 1182 hp, Co'Co' derived from russian TEM2
and a various oddballs/old classes used for MOW trains.

Road locos:
SU/SP 42 - 789 hp. Bo'Bo' The same as SM 42 but with HEP
SP 32 - 1744 hp, Bo'Bo' - romanian export for passanger trains. Overall abysmal failure.
SU 45 - 1727 hp, Co'Co' - derived from SP 45 (exchanged steam heating to electric)
SP 46 - 2214 hp, Co'Co' - a typical all rounder
ST 44 - 1974 hp, Co'Co' - the same as russian M62
ST 43 - 2072 hp, Co'Co' - romanian export, and, as sp32, isn't known for reliablity

Electric locos (all 3000V DC)

EP 05 - 2727 hp, old class EU 05 regeared to 100 mph (capable of 125+). 2 left.
EU 06 - 2684 hp, built in 1961 by (afair) Vickers-Electric in UK
EU 07/EP 07 - the same as EU 06, but built in Poland through license. EP has slightly higher gearing.
EP 08 - the same as EU 07, but with gearing to run at 100 mph (but limited to 87 mph due to age, standard EU 07 is for 75 mph)
EP 09 - the express loco :) - 3918 hp, 100 mph
EM 10 - a switcher (finally with solid state electronics - all other classes are resistor-controlled). 1288 hp
all these are Bo'Bo'

ET 21 - 2496 hp - Co'Co' freight. Slowly phased out.
ET 22 - 4026 hp - Co'Co' universal, pretty much 1.5 times EU 07. Used mainly for freight.

ET 40 - pretty much two permanently MUed EP 05 with lower gearing. 5455 hp. Bo'Bo+Bo'Bo'
ET 41 - likwise with EU 07, 5369 hp Bo'Bo'+Bo'Bo'
ET 42 - derived from russian VL10, this one is a straight twin section loco. 6013 hp. Bo'Bo+Bo'Bo'

These three are used mainly for coal trains from Upper Silesia to Gdansk/Gdynia seaports, altho ET 41 can be seen with manifest, or even with passanger trains.

anyway - if you want to know anything about european railroad equipment - visit the page below :)

http://www.railfaneurope.net/

Yes I have been on http://www.railfaneurope.net/ before and the pictures are quite nice to those who aprecciate foreign railroad equipment and aren't lethargic to foreign rail.

[Sterling1]

QUOTE: Originally posted by M636C

A couple of points there!

First, my German references don't show whether the DB class 101 used any of the work from the "Um An" prototype but it is a Bombardier from Kassell and it does have frame mounted motors with a "hollow shaft" drive (a sort of Quill drive).

The M640 was basically an M636 with an 18 cylinder engine replacing the normal 16 cylinder engine. The 18 cylinder doesn't appear to have been a success, and at least one story is that is broke its crankshaft on the day it was to be delivered! The longer crankshafts in 18 and 20 cylinder engines are weaker than shorter crakshafts, and are subject to worse "torsional vibration", twisting like a stretched rubber band, perhaps. EMD 20 cylinder engines have special torsional dampers that need to be replaced from time to time to stop this twisting effect. Anyway, the M640 was the only 18 cylinder 251 engine used in a locomotive. By the time it came out CP had given up on Alco and CN kept buying them, but not for that long.

Dofasco trucks are OK, as long as the shock absorbers keep working. These shock absorbers are horizontal, and sit between the truck and the body to stop excess lateral (sideways) movement and excess rotation ("hunting") at speed. What they do well is have a short wheelbase, so although they aren't as good in a curve as a radial truck, they are better than a conventional truck. A lot better according to CN tests, and CN kept buying them, even on GE locomotives, until the new GE Hi-Ad came out with the Dash 9 series. The other good thing was that all the motors sat on the same side of the axle on each truck (on the side nearer the centre of the locomotive). This stops weight transfer.

Try to imagine a two axle locomotive truck right at the moment of starting. Both wheels are about to roll forward, say clockwise if we are looking at the right side of the unit. Both motors are on the inner side of the axle, and because of the gears the front motor is about to turn anticlockwise. So the first thing the axle feels is the motor trying to lift it up using the gear wheel . Meanwhile at the back, the other motor, also turning anticlockwise but in front of the axle, is trying to push it down into the rail. So the truck frame tips up at the front, and down at the back, and the lead axle will slip.

Well by putting all the motors behind the axle, the MLW-Dofasco truck has only a constant "lifting" force on all the axles, doesn't tip up at the front, and doesn't slip.

EMD trucks on Dash2 and later units had the same arrangement. GE Dash7 and Dash8 units didn't have this arrangement, but had the trucks arranged both facing the same way, so they both tilted down and avoided slipping on starting (not a help if the unit was running backwards, of course).

When GE bought the old MLW plant in Montreal, they got all of MLW's designs, and they were able to sell CN and BCR units with MLW Dofasco trucks. Then, they took the upper part of the MLW Dofasco, the rubber pads, the pivot point and the shock absorbers, and mated them with the new GE Hi Ad truck with its longer wheelbase and "rollerblade" springs. This also has the motors on one side of the axle, so is as good as an MLW Dofasco in "weight transfer". GE's big customers, UP, BNSF and NS don't have light track and curves like CN inherited in 1920 when it was formed from every broke railroad in Canada. CSX got the old B&O, and lots of curves, so they were big customers for the GE steering truck. I think the GE steering truck uses the same rubber pads between the truck and the body as the Hi-Ad (but I'm not sure)

EMD got into the steering trucks first and patented their arrangement making it harder for GE. Combined with the "Super Series" wheelslip system that uses doppler radar to measure speed (like a Police speed radar gun), the EMD DC units can't be beaten for adhesion in bad conditions, because the steering trucks put the axles in the best position for adhesion. But AC motors don't run away when they slip, the inverter controls their speed, so GE and EMD AC units are more equal in wheelsip control.

I hope the answer was in there somewhere, otherwise I'll try again!

Peter

Quite lengthy there but with all the meat, potatoes and desert . . .

[Sterling1]

I was combing through the Trains magazines and came upon these strange EMD locos that had "snorkel" air intakes. For their export units what are the options that GE, and EMD provide to potential customers and how exactly does the "snorkel" air intakes work to prevent sand from getting in?

[Sterling1]

I was looking at another forum within the Trains Forums and found something that kinda stumped me for a while. What is a paper filter and how is it different from the regular filters that the car, truck, loco, ship, aerospace,etc., use?

[M636C]

OK, Air filters!

EMD and other manufacturers used oil bath filters. These were made from steel mesh soaked in oil boxed up in a steel mesh frame. These are impingement filters. As the air passes through them, dust carried in the air hits the oily steel and sticks there. These are cleaned by being boiled in the oil, the dust forms a scum on top of the tank, and this is removed, leaving the filters ready for use again. The square openings along the top of the hood on Alco RS11, RSD12 and late RS3 units each held one of these filters. They were mounted behind louvres on other units, and they sat on top of the roots blowers on 567 and 645 engines as the primary intake air filters.

When paper element filters replaced the oil bath filters, they took up more room, and resulted in a raised box on the hood, seen in the photo of NREC 2001 in the link on the GP38M-4 thread.

The paper filters are made of similar material to the replaceable elements in car air cleaners. Some designs, used on Alco units are the same size as the oil bath filters and are used as one for one replacements.

EMD also use fibreglass fabric bag filters.

Now, there are also dynamic filters, the best known version being Farr Dynavane. These consist of fixed fan like openings in metal sheets which cause the air to spin as it passes through, and the dust spins out by centrifugal force. These are used in domestic locomotives in the central air system, and bigger ones are used in the Saudi Arabian SDL50 and similar export units.

Peter

[Sterling1]

I just caught up on the Railpower getting a big order, about 35 locos, tell me all their dtails, specs,etc. They may annnouce who purchase that nice order. Oh and BTW how much does one of these locos cost, and I mean all the costs involved.
I have a feeling that I ask too much detail (sly grin) Hmmm . . .

[Sterling1]

I know that this is pushing it but I have transcripted conference call on the BNSF 3rd quarter earnings. If anyone wants to know just put it in this forum and I'll pick it up from there, i don't want excess emails in my email box.

[Overmod]

Sterling, put that information in a new thread; there will probably be interest in it from people who don't care about locomotive technology...

[Sterling1]

What are the dimensions of the MP36-3S or -3C? I would like ot know all the specs, price and costs. This mental question also came up Is it possible to upgrade the prime mover with a GE motor and/or EMD motor (perhaps 710G)?

[Sterling1]

Although this note will jack the number up 161kilometers per hour is equivalent to 100 miles per hour!!! HIGHBALL 100 MPH!!![^][:D][8D][;)][(-D][#welcome][swg][wow][yeah]
Welcome to those from the Metric world . . .

[Sterling1]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Overmod

Sterling, put that information in a new thread; there will probably be interest in it from people who don't care about locomotive technology...

The name is Matt, Sterling just happens to be my working name. The name originated from a fat and furry stuffed animal still in the closet giving me strange and weird advice, the 1 at the end came from the resubcription of the Trains website membership thing. AHH!!! . . . a long way I have come . . .

[Sterling1]

This posting lineup is slow this week, hmm I wonder if there are people who don't know what I already know and don't ask a poor bored 17 year old veteran railfan for info on trains, I sorely want ot be of help . . .

[Sterling1]

Maybe I should try the all the other postings and find such questions that are out there . . .

[Sterling1]

Must be a slow and boring night on the forum particularly this one. OH well I'll have to see what else I can come up with . . .

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Sterling1

What are the dimensions of the MP36-3S or -3C? I would like ot know all the specs, price and costs. This mental question also came up Is it possible to upgrade the prime mover with a GE motor and/or EMD motor (perhaps 710G)?

I don't know, but it would be worth checking the builder's web site.....